1. Comment #24027 by Henri Bergson on March 4, 2007 at 11:07 am

Such defensiveness betrays that real damage has been done. Well done Dawkins!

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

2. Comment #24028 by Physicus on March 4, 2007 at 11:11 am

I find myself in something of a dilemma. I'd like to read these, but at same time can't bear to put money in these guys' pockets

Other Comments by Physicus

3. Comment #24030 by Matty Two-Tone on March 4, 2007 at 11:22 am

Physicus,

If you find yourself bored or with a lot of time on your hands what you could do is this: Every day, go to the book store. Find one or all of these books. Copy a page out of them into a note book. Come home and add that page to their wikipedia sites. problem solved.

I do like however, (and by like I of course mean dislike) how they seem to think that Richard Dawkins is the only atheist that ever had an original thought and that by going after him personally they are somehow striking a blow at disbelief. What am I, chopped liver? I mean, what does a guy have to do to get some logical fallacies thrown his way?

Other Comments by Matty Two-Tone

4. Comment #24031 by Richard Morgan on March 4, 2007 at 11:32 am

"It doesn't matter what they say about you as long as they spell your name right."

Does this ring a bell?

Other Comments by Richard Morgan

5. Comment #24032 by couldbethelasttime on March 4, 2007 at 11:45 am

A quotes from 'The Dawkins Delusion'

"Every one of Dawkins' misrepresentations and overstatements can be challenged and corrected. Yet a book that merely offered such a litany of corrections would be catatonically boring." (page xii)

It is a shame that Alister McGrath limits himself to 65 pages and does not write this 'catatonically boring' book. I was looking forward to reading such a book (if a book like this could be penned with honesty). Responses to 'The God Delusion' seem to be based not on content, but on Dawkins' delivery. Can anyone advise as to whether the other two books above are more of the same, or actually contain something of merit. Mcgrath sounds a little like my girlfriend in mid argument:

'It's not what you said, but the way that you said it."

Other Comments by couldbethelasttime

6. Comment #24033 by couldbethelasttime on March 4, 2007 at 11:51 am

I'm quite tempted to write my own response to 'The God Delusion' from a Christian perspective.. no wait.. a Muslim perspective (ker-ching). Ah yes, easy money. I'm afraid that I fall at the first hurdle though. Having actually read 'The God Delusion,' I don't think that I qualify to write a book critically examining it!

Other Comments by couldbethelasttime

7. Comment #24034 by Serious on March 4, 2007 at 11:51 am

Scary, but also gratifying.

However, "don't get mad; get even".

"We" don't have to be as nasty or as muddleheaded as the godheads, but we have to be careful not to become so polite and sensitive that they no longer feel the need to throw tantrums. My reading of the situation is that what annoys "them" more than anything is that Prof. Dawkins and others don't allow anyone who screems "Faith" (capitalized) special deference.

Other Comments by Serious

8. Comment #24035 by The author on March 4, 2007 at 12:04 pm

"I'd like to read these, but at same time can't bear to put money in these guys' pockets"

Borrow them. You should at least get them in university libraries.

Other Comments by The author

9. Comment #24036 by fonex_86 on March 4, 2007 at 12:09 pm

I fail to see these theists' point. If god exists, and is as powerful as they claim (forget omniscience for now), why would he need any religious yahoos to defend him/her/itself?

Other Comments by fonex_86

10. Comment #24037 by couldbethelasttime on March 4, 2007 at 12:09 pm

"I'd like to read these, but at same time can't bear to put money in these guys' pockets"

I'm sure there are many Christians out there who would jump at the chance to lend an Atheist a copy. You can give it back with notes and corrections in the margin!

Other Comments by couldbethelasttime

11. Comment #24038 by couldbethelasttime on March 4, 2007 at 12:11 pm

fonex_86 this is an interesting point, especially as Mcgrath asserts

"...the fact that Dawkins has penned a 400-page book declaring that God is a delusion is itself highly significant. Why is such a book necessary? Religion was meant to have disappeared years ago." (page vii)

Other Comments by couldbethelasttime

12. Comment #24039 by toomanytribbles on March 4, 2007 at 12:12 pm

hmm.. seems like it's getting easier to make money. some suggestions for book titles:

-dawkins for dummies
-everything you wanted to know about dawkins but were afraid to ask
-the origin of dawkins
-a short history of dawkins
-dawkins for fun and profit
-overcoming dawkins
-dawkins in 10 easy steps
-becoming the dawkins i want to be

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

13. Comment #24040 by SonOfPearl on March 4, 2007 at 12:16 pm

Three books in response really does show how much impact The God Delusion has had. Good to know!

Other Comments by SonOfPearl

14. Comment #24041 by PaulJ on March 4, 2007 at 12:17 pm

Fascinating how all three use the same typography as TGD on their jackets. Is anyone going to be fooled into thinking they're a four-part set?

Other Comments by PaulJ

15. Comment #24043 by StephenH on March 4, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Response to:
Comment #24028 by Physicus

Wait for some time, then pick up these books second hand at bargin basement prices by people who want to pass them on. No money goes to the author's that way

It's what i do with conspiracy theory authors who claim that skeptics never read their books, so therefore are not able to argue with them

Other Comments by StephenH

16. Comment #24045 by harryh28 on March 4, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Unfounded and unwarranted criticism must be unpleasant for Richard but at least these book will stimulate the masses to think and possibly arouse their interest, which is the first step to awaking from their current stupor.

Other Comments by harryh28

17. Comment #24047 by davyB on March 4, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Read it at the book store. When you've had enough, return it to the "Religious Fiction" section.

Other Comments by davyB

18. Comment #24048 by couldbethelasttime on March 4, 2007 at 1:03 pm

harryh28, I feel that you are being a little optimistic. For a Theist, a book called "The God Delusion" should arouse their interest. I fear many Theists will read 'The Dawkins Delusion' etc, and think they understand the arguments presented in TGD. I doubt any will progress from TDD to TGD. Why would you, when you have already had your beliefs reassured?

Other Comments by couldbethelasttime

19. Comment #24049 by a-teapot-ist on March 4, 2007 at 1:07 pm

Ah, 'twas inevitable as the tides . . . praise be to Neptune, donchaknow.

Other Comments by a-teapot-ist

20. Comment #24050 by Stewart on March 4, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Funny how two of the subtitles include "atheist fundamentalism" and "atheist myth." Two things that are more associated with religion and of which atheism is completely devoid. It's as if they'd made their minds up to say the very worst thing they could about atheism - and it turned out to be the untrue accusation that it's like religion.

Other Comments by Stewart

21. Comment #24051 by robives on March 4, 2007 at 1:10 pm

I have a copy of the Dawkins Delusion - it is everything you would expect from Alistair McGrath. I'm happy to send it to anyone who wants to read it as long as they are happy to pass it on to the next reader. Send me an PM if you are interested.
Rob
(edit) I've received a message and sent off the book today :-)(/edit)

Other Comments by robives

22. Comment #24052 by BaronOchs on March 4, 2007 at 1:11 pm

I read Dawkins' God and frankly thats as much time as I'm willing to give the dawkins detractors. hopefully at least some will peruse these and share their wonders with us here.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

23. Comment #24053 by Linda on March 4, 2007 at 1:13 pm

"Final Letter to the Reader - Why Believe?"
David Robertson - 26 February 2007

"When I began this series of letters I had no idea where it was going to lead. I approached The God Delusion with a certain fear. Partly this was because whilst at University, I spent one year studying the English Civil War. I remember one black week when in reading the brilliant Marxist historian Christopher Hill I came across a statement to the effect that the English Puritans had engaged in the biggest brainwashing exercise in history. The thought crossed my mind: 'What if that is true? What if I too have been brainwashed? What if belief in God is just a delusion?' 25 years later I sat down to read Dawkins book. I tried to be as open minded as possible. I approached it with 25 years more knowledge, knowledge of things that would strengthen my belief, and knowledge of things that would cause me to question my belief. Believe it or not the top three things that have caused me the most doubt have been some of the more difficult passages in the Bible, the Church and the God Channel. I have never really had any problem with the God vs. science dichotomy, which has always struck me as a false dichotomy – something that Dawkins illustrates almost more than anybody. And I still believe. Indeed I believe more than ever. If anything Dawkins' book has not only confirmed to me the barrenness of the wastelands of atheism but has caused me to be even more thankful to God for his glory, his truth, his universe, his word and, most of all, his Son."
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2007/febb07.htm

For whom does the delusion bell toll?

Other Comments by Linda

24. Comment #24056 by Ohnhai on March 4, 2007 at 2:22 pm

I (in wanting to be open and inclusionist in my reading) bought 'The Dawkins Delusion' I will post a review once read.

Having said that I have not got past the introduction and McGrath is alrady falling into the typical habits of mis-representing the topic at hand: Dawkin's Beliefs and Atheism in general.

Will get back to you once done.

Other Comments by Ohnhai

25. Comment #24061 by MIND_REBEL on March 4, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Prof Dawkins should sue since there using his good name to make money.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

26. Comment #24062 by chauvinj on March 4, 2007 at 2:42 pm

I find this hilarious. They don't waste any time do they?

Well done RD! It seems you have created quite the stir of dismay.

Other Comments by chauvinj

27. Comment #24069 by macronencer on March 4, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Has The Dawkins Letters really got that extraneous apostrophe on the front cover? :-O

No further comments: it's all been said.

Other Comments by macronencer

28. Comment #24073 by Frostbit on March 4, 2007 at 3:48 pm

Can you just imagine the compilation of fallacious, irrational, absurdities written in these books?

I dare someone to read them!

Other Comments by Frostbit

29. Comment #24074 by sven on March 4, 2007 at 4:00 pm

For any of you who are curious about McGrath's book, but sensible enough to predict that you'd be wasting your money, you can get the gist of his "arguments" for free here: http://www.citychurchsf.org/openforum.htm

If you have recently read RD's book The God Delusion, as I have, you will notice that McGrath is completely shameless in his misrepresentation of it throughout, which he thinks he can get away with, largely because he knows that his audience (the ministry of City Church of San Francisco, i.e. all church people) probably haven't read RD's book, and won't bother to check up to see what he actually wrote.

During the Q&A section, it is clear that the audience contains no atheists to ask difficult questions, nor anyone to refute McGrath's misrepresentations. So McGrath has an easy time, and I'm sure his ego was massaged as much as his wallet was lined at the book signing afterwards.

If I posted this twice by mistake, I apologise (it didn't seem to work the first time, and I'm new to this).

Other Comments by sven

30. Comment #24076 by stereoroid on March 4, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Well, the Robertson book is not on my reading list; I don't even need to look inside. The grammar mistake in the title is enough reason for a pedant such as me to ignore it. 8)

Other Comments by stereoroid

31. Comment #24079 by Fouad Boussetta on March 4, 2007 at 5:04 pm

You're all wrong! Mickey Mouse is the One True God!!!

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

32. Comment #24081 by FrankWilliams on March 4, 2007 at 5:29 pm

I'm waiting for the REAL anti-Dawkins books to come out (with apologies to Oolon Colluphid and Douglas Adams):

- Where Dawkins Went Wrong
- Some More of Dawkins' Greatest Mistakes
- Who Is This Dawkins Person Anyway?
- Well That About Wraps It Up for Dawkins

Other Comments by FrankWilliams

33. Comment #24082 by Ewan D on March 4, 2007 at 5:29 pm

In case you change your mind Stereoroid, David Robertson's first letter is posted on this site, plus links to the sequels.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,300,Dawkins-Delusion-3rd-article-Same-Stupid-Title,David-Robertson
He tried 'atheism' once in his youth, but couldn't adjust to the obligatory nihilism and hedonistic moral anarchy, so he went back to the bible. He's a prize pup.

Other Comments by Ewan D

34. Comment #24085 by the great teapot on March 4, 2007 at 5:45 pm

I am ashamed to say I bought the Dawkins delusion today. It took me back 25 years. I have never felt like this since I bought a porn mag back in the early 80's. First there was the toe curling embarrasment of standing opposite the religous section of the bookshop- nobody around to see me there though, not so embarassing, but if I am going to buy it how do I get it to the counter without being seen. No I shouldn't buy it, It is just pure exploitation. But how do you know until you have read it? I just do.Ok leave it , leave it. Walk away, walk away.It is a waste of money.
Just on the point of leaving when my curiosity gets the better of me, it is a stupid vacant looking man at the checkout, buy it ,buy it,he looks like he has read it himself. ok ok go for it.
I bought it. I feel so ashamed , so dirty.
The only difference was the magazine I bought 25 years ago was worth the embarrasment. Anyone want a copy of TRD?

Other Comments by the great teapot

35. Comment #24090 by Fouad Boussetta on March 4, 2007 at 6:36 pm

***Answer to "the great teapot" (34.)***

You bought "The Dawkins Delusion"? Read it then!
Next time, read this type of book IN THE STORE,
without buying it, a few pages at a time: that way, you won't boost the sales figures for a dishonest enemy like McGrath. You just contributed to his purse, his glory, and his publicity!

If you really want to atone for your sins, you should buy another copy of "The God Delusion" and give it to a friend.

Go and sin no more.

Other Comments by Fouad Boussetta

36. Comment #24092 by Duff on March 4, 2007 at 6:44 pm

Laugh, I thought I would die, this clown, Alister McGrath, calling Dawkins an anti-semite. Well, I guess when you have nothing else to refute him with, you might as well resort to the reprehensible standby of anti-semitism. Oh, and besides that, Dawkins also doesn't "get" the Universe. As if any theologian who ever existed understood the Universe.
Let's not let a stupid religious statement go unanswered.
Twice this week, I had someone say to me, "Don't tell me you don't believe in god!" And twice I said, "What! Do I look stupid?" Maybe a little intemperate, but a true sentiment, none-the-less.

Other Comments by Duff

37. Comment #24096 by neander on March 4, 2007 at 7:09 pm

Excellent, RD must have really hit a nerve. There will be those who read "The God Delusion" now simply to discover what its about.

Other Comments by neander

38. Comment #24104 by Yavikins on March 4, 2007 at 8:26 pm

...I should have known there would be more Dawkins backlash books. *sigh* The second one looks particularly stupid, if only for that unneeded possessive apostrophe on the cover.

Other Comments by Yavikins

39. Comment #24109 by Zaphod on March 4, 2007 at 9:16 pm

Parasitic books is an apt metaphor. They would have no book if not for Dawkins, so maybe go even further. Obligate parasitic books.

Other Comments by Zaphod

40. Comment #24113 by Homo economicus on March 4, 2007 at 10:01 pm

Well if a christian offers you the book you could say heres my "Letter to a Christian Nation", we will compare notes afterwards.

This could work as I have "The End of Faith", and "The God Delusion".

And I should get them back shoudn't I. As they'd be hell to pay if they didn't.

I glanced at "Dawkins God" that McGrath wrote. I get the impression he fell in love with Christianity at University. Truely, madly, deeply. Head over hills and still going strong. His arguments are not even worth going into. Unless you share this love, how can you begin to understand why anyone else would?

Other Comments by Homo economicus

41. Comment #24119 by Gordon Brown on March 4, 2007 at 11:08 pm

Hmm...I wouldn't presume to judge any book by its cover, or by its page count. But temptation has gotten the better of me. I fished around the 'Net, and noticed that McGrath's book comes to a whopping 96 pages. And Wilson's "Christian Response to 'The God Delusion'"? Seven chapters, 112 pages.

Either these books are models of concision, or just pathetically slender retorts. Is 100 pages—give or take—the best that they can do to rebut the substance of an argument that spans nearly 400 pages?

Even more telling, what if a sizable portion of those 100-odd pages is devoted to chapter-and-verse quotations of scripture?

As for Robertson...his tome doesn't arrive until April, but until then we can wonder whether he wants to retain, or dispose of, the apostrophe, and see whether he settles on "myth" or "myths" as the final word in its title. (Check out his website; even he hasn't gotten it straight.) The residue of Robertson's work has been plastered all over this site already, and judging from some of the ranting I've seen in a couple of these letters, I wonder why anyone would bother on his account.

Other Comments by Gordon Brown

42. Comment #24120 by Planeswalker on March 4, 2007 at 11:14 pm

Looks like the believers are fighting back. But I guess it's fine. Good that Richard's book gets some attention.

Maybe Professor Dawkins should do like Sam Harris and make a response to his critics. He could call the book "The Delusions of McGrath, Robertson and Wilson" or maybe "Letter to McGrath, Robertson and Wilson."

Other Comments by Planeswalker

43. Comment #24121 by robives on March 4, 2007 at 11:17 pm

If you are wanting to read "The Dawkins' Letters" by David Robertson there are lots of open letters by him to RD which I guess comprise the bulk of the book here
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2007/issues07.htm
and here
http://www.freechurch.org/issues/2006/issues06.htm

Rob


Other Comments by robives

44. Comment #24131 by Mikado on March 5, 2007 at 12:55 am

Strange they should have written these books when the bible should have done the job. Could it be that this christianity thing is just about getting money for nothing.

Other Comments by Mikado

45. Comment #24133 by jonecc on March 5, 2007 at 1:15 am

I read the McGrath book. As well as the usual canards (Hitler was an atheist, Dawkins is a fundamentalist, etc), he at one point mentions that the book of Hebrews, described in the Bible as one of Paul's epistles, is considered by modern scholars to have been written by somebody else. Dawkins includes it in a consideration of Paul's work, and McGrath mocks this.

Now in Robin Lane Smith's book Truth and Fiction in the Bible he also makes this case, apparently quite reasonably so far as I can tell, but can you imagine this working in any other field? That a crucial statement of a belief should be discovered to have been written by someone other than its claimed author, and that this should be considered an argument for the defence of that belief?

Other Comments by jonecc

46. Comment #24138 by ridelo on March 5, 2007 at 1:56 am

Don't bother buying any of these books. If any one of them will have any valuable argument it will be cited and commented extensively here. But don't expect it. Probably they'll contain evermore the same trash. How could it be else when the subject is fairy tales?

Other Comments by ridelo

47. Comment #24153 by anon on March 5, 2007 at 4:08 am

The levels of panic and intellectual dishonesty spewing from the likes these authors are quite repulsive. And worse still, thousands of their readers who've never even been exposed to the other side are likely to fall for it.

We're being badly misrepresented here, and no other minority group puts up with it as much as we do.

Other Comments by anon

48. Comment #24156 by Shuggie on March 5, 2007 at 4:16 am

The cover for The Dawkins' Letters is an old cover. The new cover design has changed a lot, and the mistake in the subtitle has been corrected.

I have e-mailed the web designer with the new cover, asking him to replace the existing one as soon as possible. Hopefully this will be done later on today.

Apologies for this error.

Martin

Other Comments by Shuggie

49. Comment #24158 by The Wee Flea on March 5, 2007 at 4:40 am

Sorry guys, I just could not stay away. Please allow me to correct some of the misinformation here.

1) The Book cover is wrong - I will ask the publisher to send you the correct cover. It is not black and does not have the apostrophe - Lynn Truss would have a heart attack! I believe the cover actually has a pink Unicorn on it. And it is myths not myth. Not sure where you got this 'cover' from.

2) Whilst it is nice to be called a flea and a parasite (and fairly standard for the kind of invective one gets when challenging the atheist believers) perhaps you will allow me to point out that I wrote the first of these letters, and the subsequent ones, as a personal response to TGD. I certainly did not intend them to be published (they were on our Church website - www.freechurch.org). But it soon became clear that they had aroused a lot of interest and it was decided that they should be published. Whether you believe it or not my motive is not money (there are a lot easier ways to make money than write such a book) but rather to engage with the discussion. Surely as free thinkers you should be enouraging that?

3) I think it is wrong to accuse all three of us as just being out to make money. I do not think that Richard Dawkins wrote the GOd Delusion to make money - the fact that it will sell a million at £20 per time and make him a fortune is fine for him - but I don't think that would justify me accusing him of being a parasite on God's back! I think Richard believes what he writes and that he has written it because he wants to influence others. I disagree strongly with him but I should at least take him at face value. And so should you. Stop being so childish and petulant - it does your cause no good.

4) Stewart (comment no.20) - atheism is full of myths. That is the purpose of my own book - to challenge them. If they are not myths you should be able to stand up to them (I mean intellectually not just simply shouting abuse or crying 'idiot').

5) Gordon Brown (41) - Are you THE Gordon Brown - son of the Manse and soon to be Prime Minister of GB?! The title is 'myths' not 'myth'. Glad you like the 'ranting'. No doubt you will consider the comments that followed calm, reasoned and clear. That's what happens when you live in a reversed parallel universe!

6) Planeswalker (42) - You are absolutely correct. There is no such thing as bad publicity. I spoke at Borders a couple of weeks ago on TGD and as a result several people went and bought the book - not the effect I necessarily wanted to have (to be fair they also bought a number of Christian books). I know of several people who having read my articles decided to read TGD for themselves. I am more than happy to enourage them to do so. And I find that attitude in contrast to some of the fundies on this site (eg. anon (47) who basically says that we 'spew' dishonesty - Go Anon! That's the way to win the world by clear thinking and rational argument!).

44) Mikado - strange. You want a discussion. You want rational thought. And yet when anyone tries to give it you dismiss them as only interested in the money. What's wrong? Could it be that your faith position is really only an emotive one and that you cannot handle any really serious discussion so you resort to caricature and abuse?

45) Jone - you make a small point. But it's worth responding to because it is completely wrong and fairly typical of the uninformed responses of some atheists. The Book of Hebrews was not written by Paul and no-where in the Bible is it claimed that it was.

I realise that of course Josh set you up with the title of this thread and most of the comments are entirely predictable, however if you really want this to be an 'oasis of clear thinking' then can I suggest that you avoid the name calling and start dealing with the arguments put forward. After all does Richard not say this is about a passion for truth? Could we not at least discuss it in a civilised manner (as some of you have done with me personally?) or are you really in the position where you 'know' the truth and all other positions are just there to be mocked? Personally I think if that is the case, you deserve to be called fundamentalists.

As for discussing I am more than happy to discuss or debate with any atheist (including Richard - but then he does not debate with fleas!).

Tot Ziens....

The Wee Flea (aka David Robertson - just in case some can't work it out - I would not want to be accused of dishonesty again!).

david.robertson@freechurch.org

Other Comments by The Wee Flea

50. Comment #24160 by Martin on March 5, 2007 at 5:17 am

I got robives' (see comment 21) copy. As soon as I finish it, I'll send it to the next "admirer" of McWrath. Send a PM if interested, anyone!

By the way, thanks robives.

Other Comments by Martin